HC Deb 19 July 1957 vol 573 cc1581-602

1.50 p.m.

Mr. G. B. Drayson (Skipton)

I beg to move, in page 1, line 18, after "termination" to insert: (save as is provided in the Constitution under paragraph (a) of subsection (3) hereunder)". It may be for the convenience of the Committee, Sir Gordon, if, with this Amendment, we discuss that in page 1, line 25, to insert a new subsection (3).

The purpose of the Amendment in line 18 is to save the sovereignty of Her Majesty the Queen by means of the appointment by Her Majesty of the Governor of each of the Settlements of Penang and Malacca. The proposal in the White Paper is that the Governor should be appointed by the Malay Paramount Sultan, who is not obliged to appoint a citizen of the Settlement concerned. The residents in the Settlements feel that they should have a Governor appointed from among their own people, and not from the outside States. The Amendment would ensure that the Sovereign of the Settlement, that is, the Governor, would be as independent as the Sovereigns of each of the nine Malay States.

The Amendment in line 25 is designed to ensure that the new Constitution will be based, as far as possible, on the Declaration of Human Rights. I think it was agreed during the Second Reading debate last Friday that this was an enabling Bill—almost a blank cheque—and some of us thought that it would be possible to fill in some of the blanks, and make it obligatory that the new Federal Constitution should contain these safeguards. Here we have an example of a multi-racial community, and it is thought appropriate that the Declaration of Human Rights should be very much borne in mind.

This is not the first time that such a proposal has been made, because I understand that the provisions of the Declaration have been incorporated in various modern constitutions, among them those of Indonesia, Costa Rica, Salvador and Haiti. The Declaration of Human Rights is one of the international obligations of the new type now recognised as morally binding. If Great Britain is not prepared to accept these obligations in relation to the Chinese and Indians in Malaya, I am told that the effect throughout Asia will be to make people doubt the sincerity of this country's adherence to the Declaration.

Miss Joan Vickers (Devonport)

I was interested to read that in the Second Reading debate on this Bill last Friday, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Creech Jones) said that: … the separateness of the people has to be broken down. … With respect, I think that if this Constitution goes through as it is at present drafted this is exactly what will not happen. I am not now pleading for any particular race, but I think that we should have some equality between races, and that is something which, I fear, will not happen if the Constitution remains as it is. On Second Reading, I referred to the fact that the Constitution does not adhere of Articles 2, 18, 21 (2) and (3), and Article 26, so I will now confine my remarks particularly to paragraphs (d), (e), and (f) of the proposed subsection (3).

It is fair to point out that, together, the Malay and Indonesian populations total 3 million. The Chinese total 2½ million, and Indians and others amount to three-quarters of a million, so that those sections of the population add up to more than the Malays themselves. Another thing that rather worries me and which I wish to stress is that in Kedah, Malacca and Trengganu the Malays are in the majority, but that in Penang, Perak and Negri Sembilan they are not. I feel that in this Constitution the various reservations in regard to land militate unfairly against these different races.

As my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary said last Friday, there was a storm of resentment in 1946 against the Malayan Union proposals. I was there, and I agree that there was very great resentment. In fact, a new word was added to the Malayan language and that was "MacMichaelan", and it came to mean that this was a way of cheating people. I want to be quite certain that by this new Constitution we do not add another word to that language, and will see that all sections of the population have full equality.

It was stated last Friday, by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, that … it would be impossible to carry out effectively the parliamentary procedure on a bi-lingual or tri-lingual basis. The only way, as we have found from our own experience in this House, is by having one language …".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th July, 1957; Vol. 573, c. 707–714.] Against that, the Swiss have three official languages in their Federal House.

I wonder how people who stand as candidates and do not speak Malay will, under this Constitution, ever be able to take their seats. At present, I understand that all races go to their own vernacular schools and learn according to their own race. Tamil is an extremely difficult language, containing 360 letters, and, as is known, one can read Chinese only with a knowledge of a minimum of about 3,000 characters. Children who have to learn this, and who have parents with sufficient money to keep them at school, have gone to schools in Malaya, carried on, in the majority of cases, in English. I wonder how many people will have the chance of ever entering Parliament if this Constitution is approved as drafted. I do not think that this conforms with Article 26 of the Declaration of Human Rights.

I should also like to know how the language is to be written. We know that the official way of writing Malay is in Jarwhig, and not in the romanised script, and to have to learn this in addition will militate against many candidates in the future. As I said on Second Reading, I am very dubious whether those concerned will be able to take the test within one year of Independence Day, and this will militate more strongly against certain individuals.

2.0 p.m.

Religion, which is always a delicate question, is mentioned in the Declaration of Human Rights. Up to the present, the different States have been observing different holy days. Some States observe Sunday as a day of rest and others Friday. We should have a clear indication of what will happen in future. If there is to be a secular religion, it would be better to have a definite date settled before the Constitution comes into being.

I am still worried about the qualifications for registration and citizenship and the need to be of good character until the age of 45. We did not have an answer to this on Second Reading, and I hope that we may be given one today.

I presume that the inclusion of a reference to people who are born after Merdeka day is to give protection to what is at the moment the predominant race in numbers—the Malays; I suggest, however, that this is really no protection and is rather an irritation. One knows that it is only a question of time, in view of the size of families of the Chinese, before this provision will be of no use and will be an even greater irritation.

I think that the question of retaining registration in Article 17 of the Constitution will place a further undesirable disability on those who cannot get Malayan nationality straight away. No matter how efficient or knowledgeable they are, certain peoples will be debarred from office either as Prime Minister, Chief Minister or Governor of a Settlement, whereas Indonesians and Malays can qualify at the moment, although in future there will, I understand, be further restrictions.

A week ago, my right hon. Friend stated that there was no difference in principle concerning policy between the Reid Report and the Constitution. I find, however, that there are certain differences, particularly concerning the special position of the Malays and the Indonesians. The limit of fifteen years has now been abolished and the administration of special positions imposed. This qualifies what I have said about the inability of certain people to hold office as Prime Minister or Chief Minister. There is, in addition, the alteration concerning Islam as the established religion. The limit of the right to speak in Chinese and Tamil, which was proposed by the Reid Commission, has also been abolished.

I put these points to my right hon. Friend in the hope that we may get some of them settled before the legislation is passed. It is fair to say that the Federal Legislature is not truly representative of all the races of the Malayan population. Only about half its members—52—were elected and 46 were nominated or appointed ex officio. As I pointed out on Second Reading, the recommendations by the Alliance Party in its "Blueprint for Parliament, 1953" have now been changed. The fact that part of the population is not to be enfranchised and that the Alliance Party gave rather different evidence to the Reid Committee than in its previous evidence is a cause for anxiety.

The Reid Report states: In an independent Malaya, all nations should be afforded equal rights, privileges and opportunities and there must not be discrimination on grounds of race or creed. As the Agreement has been presented to us, I consider that this principle has not been followed.

Mr. R. W. Sorensen (Leyton)

We are all obliged to the hon. Lady the Member for Devonport (Miss Vickers), who has great knowledge and experience of Malaya. I sympathise with her remarks but assume that the Amendment will not be accepted. In any case, no harm will be done and, perhaps, a great deal of good will be achieved if we make a few remarks today which our friends in Malaya may heed and which they may yet embody in their Constitution and in the general working of the country.

I draw to the attention of hon. Members the fact that the Declaration of Human Rights was drawn up as long ago as 1948 in the General Assembly of the United Nations, and that as yet, only a few countries have ratified it. We should, therefore, do what we can, either today or at any other time, to emphasise the tremendous need for the ratification of the Declaration and its honest embodiment in legislation and practice.

It is one thing to refer to the excellent 30 principles elaborated in the Declaration, and quite another thing to work them out in sometimes very complex contexts. There is a very complex context in Malaya. Although I have nothing like the experience or knowledge of the country that the hon. Lady has, I, with others, have at least been able to see briefly, in transit through the country, some of the difficulties that arise from a multi-racial community such as is Malaya.

I am aware, for instance, that in Penang and Malacca there are Chinese who will certainly not accept the mere description of "Chinese," but who insist that they are the Queen's Chinese. They are proud to make that insistence and to differentiate themselves from those who certainly do not accept that adjective. It is quite obvious that there are more than the three main communities to which reference has been made—Indian, Chinese and Malay. There are the Queen's Chinese, the Aboriginals, the British, to whom I referred on Second Reading, and other groups, also.

There is, moreover, the great difficulty of determining what shall be the basis of citizenship. One could argue that the proposals already made, which have a bias towards the Malays, certainly challenge, if they do not destroy, the concept embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. For my part, I fully appreciate why that at least temporary qualification and disqualification should be made.

It is one thing to elaborate excellent principles which are indicative of the needs of mankind, and quite another thing to try to implement and embody them. In particular, in the language question, there is at present, if not an insistence, certainly a strong urge, that Malay should be the recognised language, whereas we, perhaps, would prefer English. Be that as it may, I hope earnestly that our friends in Malaya, upon whom will rest the great responsibility of developing their country and developing it peaceably, will appreciate the strong objection that many Chinese have to learning Malay, especially if they are elderly people.

I hope that there will be a recognition of the necessity, at least for a while, of trilingualism. I know that this adds to the difficulties of discussion, debate and legislation. Nevertheless, devices are now used in the United Nations and elsewhere by which there is simultaneous translation, thus enabling assemblies to overcome many of the difficulties that were experienced before this wonderful device was introduced.

Speaking quite personally, I very much hope that the Federation of Malaya would become a non-theocratic State, a secular State in the ordinary sense of the word, such as we have here today, in spite of our Established Church. I say that because there are tendencies in many parts of the world, unfortunately, towards the establishment of theocratic States.

There is a strong movement of some Buddhists both in Ceylon and Burma towards making those countries Buddhist countries officially. The same is true regarding Judaism in Israel; and the same is true in some parts of the Islamic world. I hope very earnestly that much careful thought will be given to the suggestion that Malaya should be a theocratic, Islamic State. I say that without any disrespect to the religion of Islam, which is a very noble religion, well honoured and practised by many of its supporters.

If the time is not too late, as I fear it is, I would urge that this particular portion of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights should be more precisely applied, and, if Islam is to be the official religion of Malaya, as proposed, there should always be the widest freedom for all other forms of religion. I have no doubt that that will be so, but I regard it as a great pity that there should not be in Malaya today a recognition that the best way out of their difficulty in having three, four or five religions in the country, practised by large numbers of people, is to allow all of them complete freedom of worship, freedom of exposition and freedom of assembly, the State itself being non-theocratic.

If the Secretary of State finds it possible to accept the Amendment, he will be rendering a very great service not merely to Malaya but to the whole human race in adopting the noble ethical and moral principles of the Declaration of Human Rights, which are a beacon to mankind even though mankind heeds them but little yet. Therefore, I give general support to what has been said today, even though we shall not, perhaps, see the Amendment embodied in the Bill. I trust that the support given to it in the House of Commons will have very beneficial repercussions in Malaya itself.

Mr. Graham Page (Crosby)

I support the Amendments under discussion, for this reason. In the Constitution which is proposed, we seem to be setting a dangerous precedent by reducing the rights of certain people who would be regarded as citizens within this new Federation. Of course, I fully realise the difficulties under which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been in reaching agreement on the terms of the proposed Constitution; indeed, I offer him my humble congratulations on getting as far as he has with that agreement. So far as the minorities are concerned, it is to some extent an improvement on the Reid Commission Report. In other respects, it seems to be a retreat from the Reid Commission Report. As I explained on Second Reading, I am pleading, unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport (Miss Vickers), for a particular race in Malaya, the Indians. It seems to me that in many respects they are put at a very severe disadvantage.

Taking, first, what is proposed in paragraph (a) of the proposed new subsection (3), relating to the appointment of the Governors of the Settlements, I fail to see why the proposed constitution provides for the appointment of the Governors of the Settlements by the Head of the Federation. If I understand the position correctly, at present, the Rulers are the sovereigns of the States and Her Majesty is the Sovereign of the Settlements.

Under the proposed Constitution, the Rulers remain the sovereigns of the States, although within the Federation, of course. Why should we deprive Her Majesty of the sovereignty of the Settlements within the Federation? There seems to be no necessity for that abandonment rather than the merger of Her Majesty's Sovereignty into the Federation. The Head of the Federation does not appoint the Rulers of the States. Why, then, should he appoint the Governors of the Settlements?

2.15 p.m.

I will not attempt to argue the sanctity of the Declaration of Human Rights, but I look upon it, in this context, as a convenient way of introducing Amendments on points which are particularly worrying to the minorities in Malaya. The four points of importance here are citizenship, the franchise, language and religion.

Paragraph (c, i) of the proposed new subsection reads: as regards persons born in the Federation, by giving full recognition to the principle of citizenship by birth (whether before or after the appointed day)". I am not sure whether it is fully recognised that those born in the Federation before the appointed day are not all citizens of the Federation.

Under the terms of the proposed Constitution, it is clear that those born after Independence Day in general become citizens of the Federation. However, because, in particular, of their peculiar relationship with and the nature of the Indian Constitution during the past ten years, it is quite possible for Indians to have been born in the Federation and still not to become citizens of it on Independence Day.

To become such citizens, they will have to come within the terms of Article 14 of the proposed Constitution, which refers back to the Malayan Federation Agreement. Some of them do not come within those particular terms and thus, although born in the Federation and looking upon themselves entirely as citizens of the Federation, they will not automatically become citizens according to the provisions of the Constitution. They will have to resort to application for registration and, in some cases, they will have difficulty in bringing themselves within those provisions and will be subject to the decision of a Minister, a political decision, as to whether they should be accepted or not as citizens.

As regards the franchise, I should like to refer for a moment to the actual Articles of the Declaration of Human Rights. In Article 21, this country, with others, agreed that (1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives. (2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country". Of course, the question is: what is the meaning of "his" in "his country"?

There are thousands of Indians in Malaya who look upon Malaya as their country and who will be bewildered and astonished to find that, after Independence Day, it is not considered to be their country and they are, therefore, excluded from the rights set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In particular, with regard to the special privileges of Malayans in the public services, I have searched through the various documents to find out exactly what those privileges are in respect of the quota of Malayans admitted into the public services. I find it referred to in places as "a certain quota" or "the quota" or some such words as those, but I am not sure what that quota is, and perhaps my right hon. Friend could give the Committee some explanation. Is it not a quota which will exclude some of the very able and intelligent citizens, both Indian and Chinese, for many years to come from assisting in the government of their country?

Next, with regard to language, the Reid Commission gives certain rights for the use of Tamil. The exclusion of that language in the proposed Constitution will, in effect, exclude very many able and intelligent Indians from taking part in the government of their country and in the public services, and I think it is regrettable that the proposed Constitution has taken that course.

On the subject of religion, it is perfectly true that under the proposed Constitution the statement that Islam is to be the one religion of the Federation is reduced in its effect by Section 11 of the Constitution. But there is this point, that money can be collected by way of taxation from persons professing other religions and spent on Islam. There is a Section in the proposed Constitution to the effect that no person shall be compelled to pay any tax the proceeds of which are specially—I stress the word "specially"—allocated in whole or in part for the purposes of a religion other than his own. It seems to me very easy to get round that provision by saying that the tax is not "specially" allocated to a religion other than Islam.

Finally, there is a provision under Section 11 of the proposed Constitution which I am sure people in this country would be shocked to read and realise exactly what it means. I refer to subsection (4) which says that State law may control or restrict the propagation of any religious doctrine or belief among persons professing the Muslim religion. That means that we are forbidding our own missionaries to propagate the Christian religion. We are certainly forbidding the other races such as the Chinese and the Indians to propagate their religion there, and it seems to me to be an extremely worrying precedent to set when we are, in fact, forbidding our own missionaries to propagate the Christian religion.

Mr. Arthur Creech Jones (Wakefield)

We on the Labour benches find ourselves in general agreement with the sentiment expressed in the first two Amendments on the Notice Paper. We have some reservation about paragraph (a) in the second Amendment, relating to the question of sovereignty and the appointment of a Governor of the Settlements. But I should like to emphasise that we fully appreciate the problem confronting the Secretary of State when the Reid Commission and the delegation from Malaya were endeavouring to find the basis for a satisfactory Constitution.

We all realise that we can make ideal Constitutions couched in the most beautiful moral terms, ethical ideals and the rest, but Constitution-makers, unfortunately, have to deal with situations as they find them and sometimes situations which are peculiarly complex and difficult. I think that in the present case a very genuine effort has been made to find a Constitution which will work. But having said that, I am very conscious that there are differences of a profound character between the races which make up Malaya and it is probable that undue emphasis may have been given to one race over another.

It may also be the case that the degree of national unity and the sense of national purpose have not yet been realised among the inhabitants of Malaya who are being brought together to sovereignty under the proposed Constitution. In those circumstances, it seems to me that in drafting a Constitution we cannot always fulfil ideal conditions, but it seems necessary, however, to get something which really works.

I said, I think, in the Second Reading debate that so far as the Chinese are concerned one fears that a time may come when they will assert themselves for a measure of equality not less than that which is enjoyed under the new proposed Constitution by the Malayans. None the less, I fear that in some respects we must anticipate trouble in the days ahead if the Constitution goes through exactly in the form in which it is before us, as drafted. Therefore, I plead that we shall have regard to the speeches which we have heard from the hon. Lady the Member for Devonport (Miss Vickers) and from my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Sorensen). I am sure that the Committee must be in profound agreement with the sentiments which they have expressed.

I hope that whatever Government is set up in Malaya under the new Constitution will have the fullest regard to the feeling and sentiment embodied in those speeches. They express what some of us strongly feel are great anxieties in a whole number of matters concerning citizenship, language, religion and even, in some respects, land. Those difficulties will probably be emphasised in the days to come if the Constitution does not work as smoothly as most of us would hope.

Many hon. Members, I know, have during the past week since the Second Reading received representations from organisations in Malaya, which claim to represent responsible, moderate and loyal opinion, expressing the fears that full justice has not been done under the draft Constitution to a number of the races involved, and expressing the hope that at least something might be done by the British Parliament to make things a little fairer and to secure a larger measure of justice for the races there.

Therefore, I put this view to the Secretary of State in endorsing the sentiments and ideas which have been expressed during the course of the debate on these Amendments, because all of us are desperately anxious that this Constitution shall work and that the new nation coming into being shall have the task of not only building up its own country but of securing the fullest co-operation and integration with the races and the happiness of all the people concerned.

2.30 p.m.

Sir Harold Roper (Cornwall, North)

I want to clear up one or two points which have been raised in this discussion, in connection with language and particularly the wording of the Reid Report to the use of an Indian language in the new Legislature.

I think that it has not been mentioned that anybody using an Indian language in the Malayan Legislature will be very little understood by any of the other members of the Legislature. That is in itself a very strong objection to the use of any other language other than the normal language of a country in a Legislature. I want to raise, also, the point as to the degree of injustice done to those people whom the Reid Report recommended should be allowed to speak in an Indian language in Malaya.

I do not know Malaya myself, but I gather that the decision relates to the Tamil language. My belief is that in those parts of India where Tamil is the indigenous language English is spoken as well. Therefore, I doubt whether any great injustice is really imposed upon a Tamil speaker who is asked to speak in English.

I remember an experience of my own on one occasion in Delhi, when I was present at a Select Committee of the Indian Legislature there. I can well remember a Southern Indian, whose normal language would have been Tamil, objecting most strongly to another Indian being allowed to give his evidence in Hindustani or some other language. He insisted that the language of this body is English. That insistence by a Tamil seems to me to have some relevance to this discussion.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd)

I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have heard with interest what has been said and noted the moderate way in which the various arguments have been advanced. It is, indeed, quite right and proper that the anxieties which are held, as I recognise they have been held by numbers of people, should find expression in the House of Commons and I do not in the least object to hon. Members raising those points at this stage of the Bill.

The hon. Gentleman the Member for Leyton (Mr. Sorensen) said that if I could accept these two Amendments I should enjoy, presumably for ever, the gratitude of the whole human race. I must say that if I could, by half a dozen words, incur that abiding memorial I should be very tempted to do so. I think that, although in the long run he, no doubt, would remain loyal to his undertaking, the complications which the acceptance of these Amendments would cause would rapidly undermine my new and exalted and very temporary position.

I hope that I can in the course of the next few minutes allay some of the anxieties and put some of these problems into perspective. We are considering the first two Amendments together and it is, I think, a fact that if I accepted these Amendments I should really jettison the patient work of the last year and reopen all the issues upon which agreement has been reached both with the Alliance Ministers, the Conference of Rulers and, indeed, with many other people, and that far from assuaging racial or religious animosities and difficulties I should be set fair to encourage them in the future.

The first Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton (Mr. Drayson) and seconded by my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport (Miss Vickers) would imply that Her Majesty the Queen would retain a limited sovereignty over the two settlements. I dealt briefly with this point in my Second Reading speech and I will come back to it in a moment. I understand exactly the feelings that have prompted both of my hon. Friends to move this Amendment today.

The second Amendment seeks to provide that the Federal Constitution shall not contain any provision in any respect contrary to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I share the view that I think is in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Creech Jones), that this document, admirable in intention though it is, is scarcely precise enough in language to form a basis for legislation of any Constitution, and it is certainly not, as my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton might have thought, casting away absolutely all the sentiments of this Declaration if we reject it as being inappropriate as a definition for the precise task of Constitution-making, without casting any reflection on States where, he said, this had been embodied. I find myself unimpressed by this Declaration as a source of accurate constitutional guidance; but it must be for us at all times to do our utmost to see that the provisions in the Constitution do pay very considerable regard to the sentiments of that Declaration.

As to the first Amendment, that the appointment of the Governors of each of the Settlements should be by Her Majesty on the advice of the Chief Minister of each Settlement, I think that the Committee will remember from a study of the papers and from the Second Reading debate that the first Governors of these two Settlements will be nominated jointly by Her Majesty the Queen and the Conference of Rulers after consultation with the Chief Minister of the Federation.

Thereafter, successor Governors of the Settlements will be appointed by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong after consultation with the Chief Minister of the Settlement. I think that the retention by Her Majesty of this limited degree of sovereignty in the Settlements would certainly not be the best way in which to launch the Settlements themselves into their life as part of an independent Malaya, independent within the British Commonwealth.

I understand, as I said, the emotions behind this feeling, but I think that if we are to encourage, as I know is the view of the people in the Settlements themselves, the identification of the people of the Settlements with the life of the Federation it would, I think, be out of the question, either in law or in practice, for Her Majesty to continue to exercise influence within the two States in the Federation which is not part of Her Majesty's Dominions, over which Her Majesty would not be sovereign and within which Her Majesty would not enjoy any jurisdiction. We should, I think, be building up for ourselves infinite difficulties both in law and in practice.

As I shall say on a later Amendment, the Settlements Councils of Penang and Malacca have, on the 16th and 17th of this month, unanimously approved this Constitution. I think that it is quite right that any anxieties which responsible sections of opinion in the Settlements feel should find expression here, but the Committee, also ought to know that the Settlements Councils, which are elected bodies, have unanimously approved this Constitution and that this has happened since the Second Reading debate in this House. I think that that should do something to set at rest some of the doubts and uncertainties of my hon. Friends.

The Amendments would also attempt still further to outlaw all forms of racial discrimination while identifying the system of checks and balances to prevent the domination of any race. I wholly concur in the sentiments behind that intention, but I would remind my hon. Friends, and others, that the proposed Constitution already states: Except as expressly authorised by this constitution there shall be no discrimination against citizens on the ground only of religion, race, descent or place of birth in any law or in the appointment to any office or employment under a public authority or in the administration of any law relating to the acquisition, holding or disposition of property or the establishing or carrying on of any trade, business, vocation, or employment. I think that does go as far as it is possible to go in the terms of the Constitution to protect the interests of all citizens.

I was asked a number of questions dealing with citizenship. Here, I can, I think, best repeat what I said on Second Reading, that anyone who is now a citizen, who was born in the Federation and is over 18 or is born in the Federation after independence will have citizenship as of right.

My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page), who raised a number of important matters, particularly about Indians, asked me one thing in particular about citizenship. It is, I can assure him, not true that Indians born in the Federation who are already citizens will be subject to Ministerial veto before becoming citizens. They will have the right to become citizens under Article 16. I hope that that, which, I know, has caused some anxiety, not only to my hon. Friend but in other parts of the House, will now be clearly understood.

I understand the difficulties which confront many hon. Members when dealing with this very complicated problem of citizenship. I can assure them that when the Federation Ministers, the Alliance Ministers, and representatives of Their Highnesses the Rulers were over here recently I myself, with my advisers and colleagues, went with the utmost and most meticulous care into this problem of citizenship. I was anxious that those who in the settlements, the Queen's Chinese, already have British citizenship, of the United Kingdom and the Colonies, should not be obliged to forfeit that right in order to become citizens of the Federation. That we secured after discussion with our friends from Malaya, and that privilege is enshrined.

In the course of those discussions with them on this very important point, on which a number of people in Malaya hold very strongly the opposite view because of what they regard as the dangers of dual allegiance, we went with care into the whole matter of citizenship. I know something of the intensity of feeling with which this matter is looked at in many quarters. I regard the compromise that has been reached, as I think I said on Second Reading, as a triumph of good sense over widely differing views, and I would, of course, very much deprecate the reopening of this matter, which, I think, has now found a thoroughly sensible and statesmanlike conclusion.

My hon. Friend raised also the question of the use of the Chinese, Tamil and English languages, as well as the Malay language for all official purposes in the Federation. I think that this would require linguistic ability of the highest order in the meanest Government office in the Federation, and I would ask hon. Members to realise what appalling complications we should be building up for the newly independent Federation if we allowed requirements of this kind.

Under the arrangement reached the two languages, English and Malay, for ten years at least will be used under Article 152 (2) and thereafter that will continue unless Parliament in Malaya otherwise decides. To bring in more languages does not just mean one more language but a number more, since the Chinese, as we know very well, speak several Chinese dialects. My hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North (Sir H. Roper) with his immense knowledge of the problem in India and elsewhere, drew a practical illustration from his own experience of what the complications could be.

I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friends, having expressed their anxieties, will realise that the conclusions which have been reached have been arrived at in the interests of good administration and certainly in no sense an attempt to curtail the rights or privileges of any one section.

2.45 p.m.

My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby also raised the question of what were the precise Malay privileges in the matter of quotas. Members who have read the Reid Commission's Report will remember that the Reid Commission found very little resentment at the existence of these privileges, which are due to obvious and historical facts, though there was a feeling that the privileges should be reviewed after the passage of a certain number of years; but the existence of the privileges themselves was regarded as quite reasonable. The existing quota recognition is in paragraph 164 (2) in page 71 of the Report of the Malaya Constitutional Commission. This deals with the definition of these quotas at present. I quote: … there is no quota for the police. … Until 1953 admission to the Malayan Civil Service was only open to British subjects of European descent and to Malays but since that date there has been provision for one-fifth of the entrants being selected from other communities In other services in which a quota exists the rule generally is that not more than one-quarter of new entrants should be non-Malays. That deals with the present situation.

The future situation and the definition of quotas will be a matter for the Malayan Parliament, but if our hopes are fulfilled and the races living together in Malaya more and more tend to acquire a common outlook and a common identity I think that we can rely, in part, anyhow, on the pressure of public opinion to prevent any undue or exaggerated extension of privileges of that kind.

My hon. Friend the Member for Devon-port asked me what was meant by the definition of good character. If she would look into the Constitutional proposals for the Federation—Article 18 (4)—she will see there set out the definition. It is the registration authorities who will have to be satisfied in this matter.

I was also asked various questions about the State religion. As hon. Members will realise, there has been a change of view in responsible quarters in Malaya on this very important matter. The Constitutional Commission, with one member, Mr. Justice Abdul Hamid, from Pakistan, dissenting, decided not to recommend that Islam should be the State religion of the Federation. The reason was that the Rulers, as heads of religion in their own States, had at that time declared themselves against any such declaration of this nature. There was, on reflection, a change of view, and there was a joint approach made by the elected Government and the Rulers, and I felt, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, that in view of the strong and unanimous view put forward by the conference of Rulers, and by the Alliance Ministers, that I ought to agree to Islam being the State religion for Malaya.

We are, of course, all of us, aware of the other provisions guaranteeing religious freedom and toleration. I know that my hon. Friend referred by inference to paragraph 11 (4) about the restriction on the propagation of religion. I would remind her that this is only permissive, and it is, I think, directed against the propagation of Muslim heresies.

I have had no reason to regard this as likely to be a threat to the Christian religion or to other religions as my hon. Friend feared. The Constitution contains a series of impressive safeguards to preserve religious freedom to which the rulers and the Government of Malaya have raised no objection of any kind. I discussed this matter with them when they were here.

Article 3 proclaims religious toleration. Article 11 specifically entrenches freedom of religion within the Constitution. Article 12 proscribes any form of discrimination, including religious discrimination, at the same time entrenching the right of any religious group to run its own schools and proclaiming that no one shall be required to participate in any religion other than his own.

I should have thought, given the very difficult problems that questions of this kind arouse and the naturally charged atmosphere in which they are frequently discussed and settled, that the arrangements we have arrived at are fair to all concerned and look like ensuring for Malaya what all who know that country realise is its natural right, the place of happy and joint life for people of many diverse religions and traditions.

I am very grateful to my hon. Friends and others who have raised these various points in such a moderate way, I hope that I have, in part at least, allayed their fears, and I can assure them that I believe that if we were to reopen the whole question it would not only make the attainment of independence by the agreed date impossible, but would probably stir up difficulties and rivalries which would undo much of the harmonious work of the last year.

Mr. Sorensen

May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman drew the attention of the authorities in Malaya to the possibility of the interpretation of the Clause dealing with religion precluding the propagation of any other religion except the State religion? I understood him to say that he was really referring to sectarian differences within Islam. It may be interpreted in other ways.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

I am sure that the attention of Ministers will be drawn to this debate. From my own knowledge I know that our discussions here are followed in Malaya and that the rulers, the Government and others, will come to see that as far as possible all fears are set at rest. I have little doubt that they will read this debate with the same interest that they have always shown in our debates and which we show in their own deliberations.

Miss Vickers

May I ask my right hon. Friend if he can give us any more information on the question of the script? In page 95 it says: In such script as Parliament may by law provide. Is there any intention of changing this?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

I am sure that there is nothing sinister behind that and that there is no intention of varying the existing scripts, though I hope that between now and the Report stage or Third Reading it may be possible to answer the hon. Lady. If I fail to do so, I will see that some words are inserted in another place to deal with that point.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Drayson

I beg to move, in page 2, line 3, after "States", to insert: and by a two-thirds majority of each of the electorates of the said Settlements voting on a referendum based on universal and equal suffrage". The Secretary of State will appreciate that this Amendment has been proposed following the representation that was made to hon. Members of this House in a telegram from the Chairman of the Malayan Party in Malacca? I was not aware, and I am glad that the Secretary of State has been able to say, that the Settlements Councils have as recently as the 16th of this month given their unqualified approval to the Constitution.

But, of course, the people in the Settlements did feel that they were being specially singled out for treatment which was not being given to the other States. As far as they are concerned, this definitely represents the transfer of sovereignty and is a constitutional change far greater than that which will be suffered by any of the other Malay States whose sovereignty remains unaffected.

As the transfer of sovereignty affects the people of Penang and Malacca, it was thought only proper that their consent should have been obtained as far as possible by democratic principles. During the Second Reading debate I mentioned the results of the Penang municipal elections which had largely been fought on this very issue and which tended to show that the people in the Settlement would like to have had another opportunity of expressing their views on the subject.

I do not press the Amendment. It may be that my right hon. Friend considers that he has already replied to the question in what he has said about the recent approval of the Settlements Councils.

Mr. Page

I rise only to support the Amendment and to associate myself with the arguments put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton (Mr. Drayson) and not to delay the Committee any further on it.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

I think that the courteous and brief way in which my hon. Friends have moved and supported the Amendment certainly calls for a brief answer from me. Even though I had in part dealt with the matter on the previous Amendment of the local government elections in Penang, I would point out that they took place during a period of some considerable communal tension and immediately after the passing of a Budget that was rather unpopular. The fact that we have today had the Third Reading of our own Finance Bill in a calm atmosphere must not blind us to the fact that some Budgets in other countries are not as popular as Budgets of the United Kingdom are always bound to be.

I think it would be unwise to attribute to the local elections any significance of a national character, although they played some part in the expression of view then obtained. As my hon. Friend agreed, a new significance has been introduced by the fact that the Settlements Councils have had an opportunity to debate the constitutional settlement and both have this week unanimously approved the Federal Constitution, Malacca on the 16th and Penang on the 17th.

To those who know the feelings held by certain people in Malacca it may be of interest to note that in the Malacca Settlement Council Mr. De Cruz, the only Malayan member on the Council, voted in favour of the constitutional settlement. I hope that this will assure my hon. Friend that while up to now there has been the fullest discussion with the Settlements Councils, the Councils themselves have been enabled to express their own view after full debate. In the light of this, I hope that my hon. Friend will not press his Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.